Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:jim@luxfamily.com: 348 ]

Total 348 documents matching your query.

341. Re: [TowerTalk] Listed Antenna Discharge Units (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:56:50 -0400
  So, just ballparking. for a few thousand dollars you could have someone with a PE license design and build a UL452 compliant ADU, run the tests, document compliance, etc.   If I were doing it, I wo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00033.html (8,492 bytes)

342. Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:54:07 -0400
Could be.  I guess my point is that hams put up all sorts of antennas and most might be guided by the code in some way, but not necessarily code compliant. On the other hand, if someones trying to fi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00046.html (11,291 bytes)

343. Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:58:59 -0400
And, of course, those polyphasers arent a listed device.  At least not on PP website. They may have a version with the test pedigree and all. Note that the government can waive a host of requirements
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00047.html (10,864 bytes)

344. Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:17:42 -0400
  This is why the terminated folded dipole is popular in emergency ops.  It's inefficient - it could be replaced by a 3-6 dB pad in the feedline to any antenna - but it requires no tuner.  In non-ama
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00055.html (12,755 bytes)

345. Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:32:28 -0400
  I have seen a strategy used in achieving compliance. "Shall use a UL listed device" (and they don't call out a specific standard), then the implementation uses something with a standard that isn't
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00056.html (11,044 bytes)

346. Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:32:14 -0400
what'a interesting is that 497 is applied to "communications" line (i.e. phone lines and data interfaces) so it "kind of" fits. For example, you'd use a UL497 listed device for your rotor control lin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00058.html (13,837 bytes)

347. Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:30:21 -0400
That does put a manually operated device somewhere.  With respect to patterns, if you use a "short" antenna (relative to wavelength)(e.g. a 10 meter dipole) with an auto tuner, you get the same patte
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00063.html (14,117 bytes)

348. Re: [TowerTalk] Balun dimensions (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jim@luxfamily.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:58:21 -0400
  I use 31 mix up to 30 MHz (and higher) to good effect.  The real part of the impedance keeps going up to 1GHz  (that's the lossy component) The imaginary part peaks at about 30 MHz, is decent to 10
/archives//html/Towertalk/2025-06/msg00087.html (9,886 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu